Motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v Washington; Prejudice; People v Hoag; Remand for an evidentiary hearing as to the effectiveness of counsel; People v Ginther

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of CSC IV after refusing two plea deals that would have allowed him to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault and battery. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial based on his trial counsel’s (P) alleged ineffectiveness. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by doing so. “Because the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by ample record evidence,” the court was “not firmly convinced that the trial court was mistaken in any of its factual findings.” It noted that the facts showed P “knew that the assistant prosecutor was getting frustrated with granting deadline extensions, so [he] understood that the second Cobbs hearing date would be defendant’s final chance to accept. [P] in fact successfully fought for the deadline extension to the second Cobbs hearing.” In addition, there was “nothing in writing containing a deadline, and as noted, [P] pursued defendant’s late attempt to accept the plea offer.” In light of the trial court’s findings of fact, defendant’s argument that P rendered ineffective assistance was meritless. P’s “actions met an objective standard of reasonableness. [His] actions, including securing two Cobbs hearings and record evidence of repeated plea discussions, enabled defendant to make informed and voluntary decisions about whether to plead.” Further, P “could not have failed to convey acceptance to the prosecutor before the deadline because defendant did not wish to accept before the deadline. Although defendant considered pleading guilty if certain terms of the proposed probation met his approval, [he] maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, even at the Ginther hearing.” Affirmed.